Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrayals of Mormons in popular media


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was withdrawn by nominator RMHED 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC). — NM  Chico  24   21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Portrayals of Mormons in popular media
This is just another non-encyclopaedic list, does it really belong in Wikipedia? keep The rewrite is excellent --RMHED 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This could become endless. Neutral Interesting rewrite appears to be in progress — NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep these "in culture" lists deal with notable topics, namely the media on the one hand, and in this case, a religion which has a sufficient sense of "otherness" to it that it produces many varied portrayals. The list just needs work. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The work that it needs is complete removal and replacement with an actual encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you actually believe that can be done?- in terms of deleting the article now and recreating it later (although I see that's not necessary now). After the Brian Peppers incident, there could be a crowd of people saying it's a repost, and therefore speediable.  Jimbo Wales deleting the article despite its total rewrite would reinforce such an argument. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's worrying about a scenario that is vanishingly unlikely. This article is nothing like Brian Peppers, Jimbo Wales isn't going to step in here, and administrators are careful about checking to see whether new articles really are the same as the old ones that were deleted.  Compare the article as it was with the article as it stands now (or even as it stood after the first rewrite edit).  Do you really think that any administrator in xyr right mind would have considered that to be a re-post of deleted content? Uncle G 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep —  As per CanaianCaesar Betacommand 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per OR. They may deal with notable topics, but the article lacks notability and WP:V.SynergeticMaggot 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete in preparation for Total Rewrite Keep after Uncle G's rewrite This list sucks as yet another idiotic compilation of one-off Simpsons gags, South Park references, sitcom throwaway lines and other dribble. This article has started off in totally the wrong direction. Let's throw the current content in the incinerator and restart it with references to only substantial works such as Napoleon Dynamite, Big Love and items from Category: Latter Day Saint films. To avoid it becoming just a list of trivia, lets start off the new stub article a historical timeline structure - so its about the change of portrayal over time. I'll help put a new stub article together Bwithh 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too similar to Articles for deletion/Ethnic stereotypes in American media 2 for my liking. -AED 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is a list of Mormon mentions in media. Even if rewritten, it would not be encyclopedic, just trivia. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, list of unencyclopedic material - it's just a collection of trivia. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Should go in the main article on Mormons. John Smith&#39;s 10:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I came to the article expecting an encyclopaedia article on the potrayal of Mormons in popular media, based upon sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and the paper listed here. Instead, I find a grab-bag of mere quotations from The Simpons and Friends.  There's an encyclopaedia article to be written on the portrayal of Mormons in popular media, given the sources, but this is nowhere near being it.  It isn't even a good start.  This is just a disguised Wikiquote article (Mormons).  Delete or rewrite from scratch. Uncle G 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this could / should be an article, but the current content is a hodge podge of trivia, and is a poor base on which to try to write an actual article. -- Whpq 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep given the rewrite has occurred thanks to Uncle G. -- Whpq 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Uncle G, with no predjudice against recreation of an actual article at some point. Keep per complete rewrite.--Isotope23 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. There could be an article on this but this isn't it and this isn't the start of one. Nothing usable here. By the way... where are The Sign of Four and Riders of the Purple Sage? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. This is just ridiculous. Sandstein 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Keep after excellent rewrite. Sandstein 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question, if so many people think there should be an article on the subject, and Uncle G can come up with all those potential sources for one, and someone's willing to write it, why does the existing thing need to be deleted? Why not just start from scratch, write the article in the space where the existing article is, and leave the edit history alone?  Why remove the edit history in the process of creating a new, good, useable article there? ONUnicorn 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. This is why I included the word "or" in what I wrote.  ☺  Uncle G 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to say you are still missing the "someone willing to write it"... but Uncle G did the rewrite. Striking opinion above.--Isotope23 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten by Uncle G. Now has the makings of a good article. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done, Uncle G for taking the initiative. I will help out on the article later on Bwithh 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; I missed the original, but the current version seems fine. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This current version is significantly improved and worth keeping.  The previous article was beneath WIKI.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep new article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this rewritten article, I'd like to withdraw my AfD nomination--RMHED 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.